Curiouser and curiouser.

Thanks for covering this PW!

For Stormin’ Norman Coleman:
There’s Never Been Any Reason…

I was under the impression the Senate salary wasn’t Norm’s only cash cow. Is he afraid he won’t have any clothes if he let’s go of the dream.

Coleman has or can raise money- so why not spend it on lawyers- eh? Can’t see any real benefit in what he’s doing- if there is a trove of legal votes for him just waitin to be counted, I can’t imagine where they are….

When you can’t win, just be a general nuisance. Everyone will remember you.

Coleman might see himself as the savior of the GOP Senators ……. if he can weasel his way into winning this then can increase their numbers and help them obstruct ……

Is this the same Sara as gives history lessons at EW??

Yep, Same Sara… The one who actually attended just out of curiosity, one of the hearings in the Anderson-Rolvaag Great Minnesota Recount of 1963. Having done that, and in light of the Coleman-Franken Recount, I admit, I am an historic artifact, ready for museum display treatment.

Of additional interest, the special court has agreed to deal with the petitions of those voters who were notified they were “wrongly discarded Absentee Voters” — most of them are represented by a Franken Attorney — in the main case in the upcoming hearings. I frankly don’t know how to count these ballots — some of them come through the Franken Campaign itself as they contacted voters on this list back in November and early December, and others just went ahead with independent petitions. There are over a hundred of them, could be 160, could be about 100. They are all out of the batch that were ruled wrongly discarded on review by county election officials, but were not accepted by both campaigns during the mandated Supreme Court Process during the recount.

My guess is most of these are Franken votes — so if they are accepted, good god, we the margin might move up to over 300!!!

Actually the process forward is rather simple — the 3 judge panel will hear the case much as a court would hear a civil case, issue a ruling, and if the loser doesn’t like the ruling, it can appeal to the Supreme Court of the State. Then they rule — and send their ruling, plus all the evidence (which would include nearly 3 million ballots, plus all the recount process materials) to the Senate for their review. In the meantime, I suspect the State Supremes will recommend a provisional seating of Franken…and the US Senate will send the matter to their rules Committee, Chuck Schumer, Chair, and they will decide not to recount 3 million ballots, but accept the Minnesota SoS recount as flawless.

I have two lessons from all this. First — the Minnesota Legislature needs to give attention to the difference between Early voting and Absentee voting. They require different rules and procedures. Right now we are piggybacking an allowance for early voting on to our older rules for absentee voting, and that allows for early votes to be discarded — that should not be the way it works. That is why we have about 12 thousand uncounted absentee ballots in the mix this time round. We need to go back to the reasonable but strict rules as to who can absentee vote — and then make a totally new but compatable system for early voting.

Second — The Legislature needs to look at the schedule. Our recount laws and the schedule for their execution is in state statute law — and it may need to be speeded up a bit. The time between Canvass and the beginning of the recount could have been shortened, and so too could the recount window been shortened, (I guess that could have gained us two weeks). Likewise the Canvass Board could have begun work then two or two and a half weeks earlier, and finished mid December. All too many of these dates in law reflect how we did things in 1963.

As always, thanks Sara.

Coleman is a corpse being picked clean by vultures lawyers, Joe Friedberg is just getting a bunch of bonus hours, probably a precondition to his defending Norm from possible future criminal proscection.

Norm could have found a less expensive way to end his career, but that would be against the GOP prime directive, enriching the base.

Thanks, Sara! I thought you were one and the same, but didn’t want to say so.

I am not sure I understand the discussion about the possibility of a Franken-Coleman “re-vote”. As far as I know, there is no provision for a re-vote in Minnesota election law. Perhaps there is an assumption that a court might order a re-vote– but what court. The Minnesota Supreme Court?

And on what grounds? “Equal protection”? From what I know, this would be difficult — given that Minnesota election law provides fairly clear guideline and procedures for ensuring that every legally cast ballot is accurately counted (in other words, a process that ensure “equal protection is already in place).

What about bumping up a legal challenge to the U.S Supreme Court? As I understand it, the only possible grounds would be “equal protection” challenge. I think this is what law professor Paulsen tried to suggest in his Wall Street Journal article. But Paulsen’s argument seems to be very weak. (Even Scott Johnson — a friend of Paulsen and fellow lawyer — who post on conservative blog Powerline, has found Paulsen’s WSJ article to be very, very weak.)

So why the talk about “re-vote”? Any legal foundation for this… in Minnesota? Or is the idea just a bunch of horse-poohy?

Hi Sara

My understanding of Minnesota election law is that after the Election Contest Court (the three judge panel) has made its formal ruling on which candidate has received the most legally cast votes, the Secretary of State and Governor would STILL be required to sign an official Election Certification (independent of the Election Contest Court’s responsibilities for forwarding its ruling and other materials to the U.S Senate). Is that your understanding?

Also, do you know whether a certification can be legally signed if an appeal is made to the Minnesota Supreme Court?